Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee as a "predator zone" of harassment in a meeting attended by dozens of employees, according to a bombshell report in The Guardian. Other women recalled being catcalled by male employees, feeling unsafe around male managers, and being subjected to sexist comments by their superiors, the report states. For months, The Guardian has been tracking the case of AJ Vandermeyden, a former Tesla engineer who sued the electric automaker for "unwanted and pervasive harassment." In her suit, Vandermeyden alleges that she and other female employees were denied promotions, paid less than their male peers, and retaliated against after making their concerns known to human resources. Several months after making her claims publicly, Vandermeyden was fired by Tesla.
bring in some Aliens to fight all of those Predators.
You know...maybe we just need to accept the fact, that given the sexual differences and relationships between men and women, that we really aren't that will built to co-mingle in the workforce.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You should see what's going on at SpaceX. Women there are forced to build products shaped like penises. Oh my!
Nah!
Meh!
Send everyone to sensitivity training.
That almost never happens.
Sounds like there is lots of pussy to grab and he's a sexual predator.
"Several months after making her claims publicly, Vandermeyden was fired by Tesla." ... concluded her complaints were unmerited.
Oh the evil misogynist corporation trying to silence the victim?
No
She was fired because 'a neutral, third-party expert'
You know what, you're right, from now on we're assigning you to work with all males only, all the time. I'll take one for the team and work with all females, don't thank selfless old me! :)
Let's take that assertion at face value. Further, let's even suppose that you are right. Now, we're the species that have risen from warlords and chieftains to a planet that is more democratic than not. We have eradicated deadly diseases. We have landed on the moon. So, should we just throw up our hands and say fuggedaboutit, or maybe, just maybe, we could work a little harder on problems like these, where the problem is essentially to tell a bunch of assholes (and the smaller group of management assholes who are enabling this) to stop being assholes?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
well who's going to wash my car now.
If you are criminally harassed, record and call the cops. For anything else consider that your safe zone doesn't extend past university campus, social studies faculty.
I can only imagine the level of eco-feminist-vegan cunts that would work at Tesla.
Honestly I'd rather be trapped in a room full of vegans than Tesla lunatics.
"to a planet that is more democratic than not. "
What is this planet you write of? It is unknown to me.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You mean like Wolves, Lions, Bears and shit? That's awful!
That always seemed to take care of predators in the movies?
Actually I just heard about a woman dying in some sort of automotive factory mishap. Maybe they could re-enact it for any male employees catcalling on the womenfolk?
Do that once or twice, especially if it is only their manhood and I am pretty sure those catcalls with stop, replacing by winces and self-crotch grabs.
Stop harassing women.
I swear, half my slashdot posts could easily be me going "Let me google that for you, you lazy hump."
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
You're right. So you guys need to stay home and take care of the house while we women earn the big bucks. If you can't co-mingle with us in the workforce, then stay home.
I take no position on the merits of the case until more information is forthcoming, and neither should you. But to call any and all claims of harrassment "feminazi" is hateful.
Yes, I know Tesla is kind of a startup, but auto plants can be rough places in general. There's certainly no political correctness going on in the ones I've been in. Companies need to crack down on harassment, but singling out Tesla is hardly fair.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The problem with that is that shit rolls downhill. Management does it, so those under them do it as well because it's okay and because they too want to feel a bit empowered and they can't beat up on management.
And half the time they don't even realize they're doing it, because everything - management treating underlings as disposable slaves, and men treating women like shit, has been normalized, especially in the post-2000 tech environment that has reduced everyone to a cog who is replaceable at a whim, and where shareholders generally won't hold you to account as long as you make them the bucks, no matter how many people's necks you have to stand on, regardless of the sex of the necks you stomp.
If you can't do 100 hour weeks (and not be paid for 60 of them like a good slave), if you object to the overt sexism (you need to "toughen up" instead of expecting to be treated properly) you're not a "team player" - even when the goal of the team owners is to milk you dry as quickly as possible and then toss you aside for the next sucker.
All workers are suffering, and all workers are looking for outlets. Women just happen to be the "easy target du jour", like usual. Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. And as a result both sexes come out behind.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well then maybe the "man" should grow up and act like a real man and not a PFY with raging hormones.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I can imagine, all these female employee being groped/harassed by some invisible D-bag.
Except labor laws prohibit certain forms of harrassment at work even if they don't constitute criminal behavior.
Academia Liberals: We need to move past primitive religion, and embrace evolution.
Evolution: Man is a predatory species.
Academia Liberals: OMG, how did we get all this predatory behavior?
Elon Musk is a progressive Clinton supporter. So are most Silicon Valley VCs and CEOs. The fact that these people and companies are constantly mired in misogyny and harassment claims neither surprises, nor prompts denials from, conservatives and libertarians. Why should it? It's not surprising to us that progressives and male "feminists" harass women.
So, when you talk about "misogynist scum", you perhaps need to be a bit clearer who you're talking about.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=you+lazy+...
Not at all what you are insinuating would be in it... Nothing about democracy.. Just memes..
Why build a factory in California? Build it where people are tougher!
Or, alternatively, a very very small portion of the population wants their biases about men to be taken as gospel and tend to make false accusations that the rest of us, being people who want to do the right thing, swallow hook line and sinker with zero thought put into it.
Everywhere there are jobs to be had, especially good ones or newly created ones tend to attract all sorts of gadflies. Women claiming they were sexually harassed is one of those.
Dogs are naturally social animals, but if you starve them, they will fight each other for food & resources. It seems people aren't so different. Now that our corporate masters have moved the lower and middle classes to the kid's table, folks are fighting for the scraps.
This is just one common way women bring the noise "I was harassed!" What I'm actually *hearing* is "I want to get one of those jobs and keep it!" The sexual harassment being incidental until some better qualified person who happened to be male was willing to do the job for the same money. Then again, maybe there is just too much grabassery at Tesla. Given how these claims usually pan out, I doubt it, but it's possible.
No, you are socially maladjusted.
It's been tried.
The single most inarguable point in the work world today: If things WERE like the feminists claim, the first company that hired only women would put its competitors out of business...But that's laughable.
I've worked on a 'hen floor'...nothing got done, except by one of the two men on the floor.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Try not to project your shortcomings on the rest of us please.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Do you think fear of God stopped anyone from doing bad things to other humans?
>So, should we just throw up our hands and say fuggedaboutit
Rising from the ashes of our former cave ancestors had little to nothing to do about gender equality in the manufacturing, design, or board rooms of our mixed workforces today.
I see you posted in English, I guess we should just throw our hands in the air and say Wintergreen Mints are best because it's also written in English.
SEE? NO COMPARISON EITHER.
Yeah, screw them...
By the way do you have a daughter, because I want to know where she works so I can tell her every day that I want to fuck her brains out...
No daughter, that's cool, how about your sister, mom, any woman in your family. I just want to work with them and treat them like shit until they kill themselves. That is cool right?
That's an interesting theory, but catcalling coworkers will get you fired nearly anywhere. Tesla should crack down on that shit.
I am so down for that. Bring home the bacon and I'll fry it up in a pan.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's more of a highway to someplace dangerous... perhaps then a Highway to the Danger Zone?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No feeding the trolls.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Not trying to sound like a prick. But in my experience the whole "feminism" thing is out of hand. They want to be treated equal, but only for the good parts.. Once they decide to really want to be equals, then they have a leg to stand on. In a lot of "man accused of heinous crime against woman" cases it comes out they the woman was mad and wanted to get even. Ive seen women call the cops for no reason cause her boyfriend made her mad. but that's besides the point. The way I see it, Want to be equal to the men, you have to accept the being hated like a man part too. There is no in between when you're screaming "equality" and wot not. And yes if you haven't seen it, they normally SCREAM that at men. Then again I don't believe in hitting women, or honestly women having to work. I guess I was raised "old fashioned"
yes
thats why "god fearing" is a synonymn for "law abiding, wholesome and trustworthy"
When did Slashdot become a place of so much vileness, racism and misogyny?
Some of you guys have some serious problems.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
This is 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. How many people, other than Jesus, would universally fit most definitions of 'god fearing'? Its an aspiration and ideal, not a method of reducing criminality.
Since recorded history, whenever an attractive lady walked past a construction zone or equivalent, the male workers hooted and hollered like a bunch of monkeys (which humans pretty much are for good or bad).
Multiple times I've rode to lunch with "white collar" workers, and they do the same when an attractive lady crosses the street, usually with the windows closed, which differs from the factory situation in that the lady usually doesn't hear it (or pretends not to).
Males are biologically horny and it would take a lot of effort and resources to outright stop them from showing it. I'm not condoning flirtatious behavior, only saying it's very economically expensive to curtail most of it and there's probably a point of diminishing returns. Society needs to decide how much enforcement and regulation should be applied to curtail it because the cost ain't free: court costs, firing, training, and policing it is a de facto tax on products and services.
I will agree that (uninvited) touching and outright rude remarks should be punished by probation or termination. But there's a lot of "soft" harassment, much of it subjective in terms of offensiveness. For example, there's a lot of middle ground between "You look very nice today", and "You look veeeery nice today."
Another thing is that if a lady doesn't want such attention, dress ugly, or at least non-sexual. It's quite possible to look professional without adding a sexual nature. Wear dark pantsuits or long loose-fitting skirts, mild or no lipstick, light makeup, hair up or a simple ponytail, and simple practical shoes. Of course there are a few exceptional ladies who look hot in anything, but that's rare outside of modelling agencies.
I've asked some attractively-dressed ladies why they dress provocatively and yet complain about harassment. Their answer is often hypocritical: "I'm okay when nice men flirt with me but not creeps". They want the upsides of attention but not the downsides. I have to call them on that: you can't have it both ways. For one, "creep" is subjective (as the election showed).
Society will probably have to compromise: men can tone it down and learn to be more subtle, and women can manage their attire better.
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry, I stopped doing other people's homework in High School. You are the one who made the claim that this planet is more democratic than not, so you are the one who needs to back that up.
Yes, absolutely.
Mainly because obvious fact.
But, no need to conjecture about it, we have a very large-scale test to refer to. Stalin and Mao explicitly following a policy of State Atheism killed more people (their own citizens) in a couple decades than religion has over all time.
Leaving aside the fact there isn't a single objection you can make to any behavior derivable from evolution. Someone's DNA won, someone's lost. Nothing more to say about it.
Mainly, Liberals want this opportunity for a lack of morality to be applied to their own behavior, but will naturally scream (sometimes, literally), when their own premises are applied back to them.
But no reason to conjecture about this either. The guaranteed fact is that evolution will eliminate 100% of you. So your hypocrisy and philosophical incoherence is really more of a temporary annoyance.
To be frank, it probably has... in fact, probably more often than not.
The reason you don't hear about it is because the people who are busy actually *following* what their scriptures actually say about how to treat other people, you know... "love your neighbor as yourself" and all that shit, aren't typically going around causing harm to anyone else.
And it's hardly inconceivable in that context that their belief system and their belief in God plays a significant role in the formation of how they treat other people.
So again, to answer your question... almost certainly, yes.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As a kid, I wanted a bike but my parents couldn't afford it. I gave my children a new bike every year!
As a teenager, I mowed our lawn and the neighbor's too for pocket money. My children will never have to mow any lawn or need for money!
As a young adult, I had to work two jobs to buy my first car. I give my children a car when they are 16 years old!
My experiences shaped me, but I will always protect my children from having these experiences!
Despite all this, they are total failures. It's because of racism. They are white but they might as well be black!
I already see a million comments from the crowd who dismisses all these complaints as "SJW BS." However, there is a pattern of startups ignoring bad behavior of some "rockstars." If proven to be true, that incident with Uber was pretty blatant -- having a female employee receive a request for...companionship...on her first day from her boss. I'm sure Tesla isn't far from its roots as a startup in terms of HR maturity either. They may be pretty far away from some one-trick phone app startup, but this is a culture thing that doesn't change unless there's external pressure to do so.
It doesn't even have to be a startup; I've worked at established companies where top salespeople get automatic passes on all the sexual harassment rules -- their management is willing to deal with the fallout to keep this salesperson producing. Watching some of these latent lawsuits in action is interesting, and the anti-SJW crowd can't just pretend it doesn't exist or that female employees receiving this treatment are all too sensitive. Whether it's the "neckbeard creeper" sort of stalking harassment, or the "ex-fratboy" overt kind -- if I were a woman I wouldn't be too happy with having to put up with either.
Yikes, so much wrong with this.
Title says "Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees", but the first sentence says "Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee...". So which one is it? Plural is quite different from singular.
Then, there's the story (I'm not even gonna touch the Verge crap, we all know it's an identity politics rag at this point). Let's see.
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day was “be bold for change” in the fight for a “more gender inclusive world” – but some at Tesla had a different plan for the day.
Five seconds in, and we already know the author is an "I know what's best for everyone" type keyboard warrior. This does not bode well for objectivity.
It was an opportunity for women to discover essential oils. A “health and wellness group” at the electric car company invited female staff members to an 8 March “lunch ‘n learn” about oils and how they can help improve people’s “health and happiness”, according to emails seen by the Guardian, which reveal that the proposed event was quickly met with vocal criticism.
Starting off great with some outrage that women were offered a 'lunch 'n learn' about oils. It's a well known fact that women don't like such things, that's why there's no market for female skin care products or wellness products. But hey, don't let a multi-billion dollar market get in the way of your feminism, you know what's best for everyone. Stay strong.
Tesla postponed the oils session. The company organized a town hall meeting on diversity for that day, which included six male executives and one woman, according to multiple attendees.
Note that there weren't 7 women executives attending, which is how a correctly diversified workplace should look. If they're all black, that's even more diverse. Diversity means fewer dicks in well-paid positions (but screw coal mining and construction, those places are dangerous!). Also note that this point is according to multiple attendees, but doesn't mention if Vandermeyden is included.
At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said.
Now suddenly, "sources said". It's no longer Vandermeyden? The author doesn't mention other people coming forward here...
Vandermeyden, who attended the meeting, thought the outpouring of comments validated her own story.
Oh, I guess we're back to Vandermeyden.
Testimony from the town hall – along with internal emails from Musk, and Vandermeyden’s first interview since her termination – paint a picture of a company that has struggled to respond to mounting complaints about gender discrimination and has aggressively attempted to discredit a woman who publicly criticized it .
Testimony from the Town Hall... according to Vandermeyden? This is starting to sound very fishy. Almost as if there's only a single source for the "sky is falling" claims.
Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee.
Ahh, so there it is. Vandermeyden and another attendee. Wait, why is the other attendee only mentioned now? Does that mean that the other attendee only validated this one thing? That there were "more than 20" women attending?
One woman described parts of the factory as a “predator zone” for harassment. When the moderator asked women in the room if they had ever been catcalled, a significant number of women raised their hands, according to Vander
And your grandparents would have washed your mouth out with soap for disrespecting women. Your grandparents worked hard so you could have a better life - don't disrespect that by using it as an excuse to disrespect others. For that, they'd have taken you out to the woodshed.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A slap in the face at the millions of male and female co-workers who work together with out catcalling and complicit management. For a bunch of geeks and nerds who consider themselves smart problem solvers, y'all seem to want to give up easily.
What pisses me off personally, as a man/male is that the world takes these allegation at face value without one FU...K shred of evidence. Women's advocate group goes boinkers backing these claims even though, NO EVIDENCE is there.
What, your a woman so that entitles you to automatically be a victim without any proof? Where's the equality in THAT?
LOL, I don't have to do shit. You want to believe what you want to believe? Knock yourself out, it's only you you're hurting here.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I did.
Earth isn't.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Fantastic, you've picked a nit, one completely unrelated to the discussion at hand! You can rest easy now, brave warrior.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
risen from warlords and chieftains to a planet that is more democratic than not.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I'm going to say it's a lot of the heinous crime against women cases that stick in your mind or that you choose to remember. Look, I'm a man too but watch the news. Woman assaulted -> by a man Child assaulted -> by a man Man assaulted -> by a man. That's 99% of cases. We are raising our men in ways that they apparently don't know how to deal with their problems without being assholes.
Is automatically right because questioning her would be sexist
For that, they'd have taken you out to the woodshed.
Gramps only used to take the girl children there; they didn't always come back with their underpants.
Your Grandparents also got paid a reasonable wage for their efforts. Wages have been stagnant for a large majority of people since the 1980's while inflation has continued to rise. As a result the things your grandparents could afford as a result of working hard, are no longer affordable.
The long hours suck, but I suspect what is really the problem, is that you can work a 100 hour work week and still not be able to afford the simple things.... a house, or kids, or at least not living paycheck to paycheck.
The single most inarguable point in the work world today: If things WERE like the feminists claim, the first company that hired only women would put its competitors out of business...But that's laughable.
Well obviously that'd be because the sexist men didn't buy enough of what the superior-and-totally-not-sexist-women-only-company was selling.
And you aren't doing shit, Jackson. Google it ! More bullshit than not ... got that right.
That's kind of what I see every time the subject of women's mistreatment in technology companies comes up - it seems like the women doing the complaining are, for the most part, complaining about the same sorts of things the men face, but attributing it to the fact that they're women (and missing the fact that the men are dealing with most of the same shit). The only exception is that sometimes the men ask the women out on dates, which (apparently?) women don't like, but most of the real mistreatment is dealt out pretty evenly.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
"Predator" is sexist lesbian slang for straight man. Even worse it's appropriated from terminology applied to pedophiles, adult women passing themselves off as abused children should be denounced just like their "herstorical" claims that white middle class women were oppressed more than plantation slaves.
Or if you think that this will change their behaviour, a concealed mic and then come back with evidence.
Hate is a useful emotion for trashing bullshit lib.coms , feminazis and tyrants. Here pad're ... spread yo cheeks and get an iron bootheel full-of-it!
Read some of the history of Fremont NUMMI when Toyota started their joint venture with GM. The plan was to have Toyota teach GM how to build cars the Japanese way, but what happened was the opposite. I think This American Life had a podcast talking about the open prostitution and drug dealing happening on the factory floor. PS, my Tacoma built at NUMMI is a complete disappointment. Completely rusted out roof within 10 years in drought stricken California.
"Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee. "
So no one could independently verify that 20 women actually made comments at this meeting, other than a Woman who is trying to sue Tesla over supposed discrimination, and some random, unnamed person? Those are what pass for sources enough to write an inflammatory article saying "DOZENS OF WOMEN CLAIM HARASSMENT" ?
Marking this as funny (it is) is just more indicative of the problem. Cat calling and misogynistic jokes are desires cloaked in humor, but they are that. Desire. Sex is a market. There are the suppliers (women) and the consumers (men). It's going to take a very long time to out-grow millions of years of evolution that got us here. Guys will behave that way. It's unfortunate, but it's true. For millennia, that behavior was biologically rewarded with successful offspring, so as a guy, we're behaving just like our forefathers have, and expecting it to stop is just a fallacy, that's the sad truth to it.
They shouldn't have fired her, they should have sanctioned or reprimanded the harassing males, and hey should have had a safe place where she could address HR without her manager finding out until an investigation was concluded. And I'm not saying it's right, im just saying if you Home to change it, its evolution who you're up against.
It's going to take a very long time to out-grow millions of years of evolution that got us here.
Pfffttt according to our new feminist overlords it should be an instant change as women are never controlled by their biology. So should be the same for men too.
I'll bet you wonder why you've never, ever, ever been allowed to touch an actual booby without having to make bail afterwards, too. But at least you accept that you never, ever, ever will.
Desire has its place, the workplace shouldn't be it. Something about "don't crap where you eat" comes to mind. If some employees can't control themselves, then there's a door they can be shown.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Women by and large ran the massive industrial development necessary during WWII when the US was putting out a ship a day. Able bodied men were in the military and it was women left to get the work done.
As I recall, we won that war rather than loosing it due to lack of munitions from the home front.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
When I spent some quality time at Tesla doing installation work, I was surprised by various workers at different pitches along the line loudly blasting hard core hip hop music that profanely objectified women (you know the type of lyrics I"m talking about). On one hand, I appreciated that Tesla let their very hard working employees listen to the music (and I really appreciated being able to eat free cereal while I worked on electronics out on the line). On the other hand, I found the lyrics of the music to be really offensive to women and not at all professional. Also, I was surprised there there seemed to be little concern for the safety implications of blasting loud music.
taking care of kids and making dinner not slaving away in a factory for menial wages. If 1/2 of the work force were to suddenly leave, the oligarchs controlling the factories would be forced to pay the remaining male workers more, who would be able to afford to keep the women at home and pregnant. This is the natural order of things.
It is not natural to have all the women folk working in factories while the state takes care of their children through subsidized health care, and noone can make a living wage because there is a surplus of workers.
To all those who call me a racist misogynist homophobic trump supporting nazi faggot, I would like to turn the tables on you. If a man came into a salon farting, talking loudly about sports, and smelling the women would rightly give the man the cold shoulder.
Leave the factories to men and dykes.
No, no, no... you've got it all wrong. It's not just equal rights for women, they're against equal rights for any group that they don't like for whatever reason. Maybe they don't like women because they were rejected by a high school crush, maybe they hate gay people because of self-loathing, maybe they hate immigrants because they are upset that these people have a passion they lack. Point is, you don't just up and start hating a group of people for no reason. It's really just people projecting their hatred of something about themselves onto others.
I'm all for people dialing down the political correctness a couple notches, and puling that stick out of their ass a little, but assuming these allegations are even half as bad as described, it's pretty damning for Tesla. On top of that, they handed the one woman a retaliation claim by firing her for taking legal action after the company refused to clean up its act. I would imagine most women don't really mind the odd poor taste joke, crude language, or possibly even the odd catcall. When it gets to be a regular occurrence, every day, that's when you have a problem.
Sigh. I hate it when I have to do this.
I celebrate the contribution women made to the war effort, but it is a downright lie to say they "by and large ran the massive industrial development necessary during WWII when the US was putting out a ship a day."
Women, at their peak, during the war, comprised 37% of the workforce. Which is awesome- and a *massive* increase from before the war. And they did it for less money. But don't rewrite history to make it prettier than it was.
The other problem is that offense is in the eye of the beholder. A man can genuinely not mean to be offensive - legitimately just asking a pretty girl out on a date, and it can be (mis)interpreted as offensive behavior. Now you end up putting management in the position of trying to armchair quarterback male/female interactions - was this really harmful, demeaning, threatening behavior or is she just overreacting? Since there's usually very little disincentive to err on the side of believing the accuser, you end up with men who tread VERY carefully around female coworkers - which is itself considered a different form of sexism, since the women end up finding themselves excluded.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
to call any and all claims of harrassment "feminazi" is hateful
Well, it's not always warranted. But ... you're in Germany circa 1931, and you see yet another news story about how the nasty Jews are harrassing good Aryan citizens. Do you take it seriously, or do you dismiss it as just more hate speech from those wacky Nazis?
They co-mingle just fine where I am. Very few problems, nothing like what is reported in this article. We have female managers, employees, scientists, engineers, technicians etc. I'm not claiming we've never had a problem, but problems are rare and harassment is not tolerated at all.
There are the usual and difficult issues with unconscious bias, matching pay to jobs etc but I haven't seen blatant harassment in the 25 years I've been here.
Its not that hard. When you are work, act like a professional.
A coal fired Tesla is a stupid idea worthy of your lack of imagination. Wouldn't it be more likely that a coal fired Falcon 9 could be made to work than a coal fired earth bound vehicle?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
When the boss or the coworkers are pretty much only sexually harassing women (and it's not just "asking them out for dates" - repeatedly after being told no) then this is gender-specific problem, and saying "The only exception is that sometimes the men ask the women out on dates" is just so tone-deaf ... and following that with ", which (apparently?) women don't like" is blaming the woman because the man can't conduct himself in a professional manner.
There's sexual harassment, and there's discrimination as well, and that discrimination is pervasive. Everything from meetings to pay and promotions. It's not just about inappropriately repeatedly asking for dates when the woman says no.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It was part of your argument. Now it's an unimportant not?
Perhaps you would like to restate your point? Or just wander off smug in your dismissal of those who prefer rational argument?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Some women claim there's a lot of sexism and harassment at a company that just so happens to be in the news night and day and set to make money hand over fist in the very near future... but hardly a peep do I hear about the car companies in Detroit or Chicago...
The cynic in my head is saying that some combination of these things may be true:
1. These women are full of themselves (evidence: they wanted to work at a big exciting fresh and flush company instead of boring old Ford) and are taking the mildest of comradely banter and/or criticism as though it were bone-deep psyche shattering Hannibal-Lecter-tier gas lighting and abuse.
2. These women are trying to extort and/or blackmail money from Tesla and Musk
3. It turns out that diversity in the workplace isn't all that great in practice...
4. The fact that these stories keep coming up in a fashion similar to the false rape allegations flung against people like Bill Cosby makes it seem like #2 is very likely. As Merk42 pointed out above, Vandermeyden was already proven to be full of shit.
If you are criminally harassed, record and call the cops.
Since it's a civil case, not a criminal one, I'm sure you meant "lawyers" instead of "cops".
So yeah, that's what's happening, but you seem cross about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Rules to work by:
1) Don't be an asshole.
2) Particularly don't be an asshole if there's a power-relationship involved (such as superior/subordinate).
Adhering to these rules might go a long way towards creating stable work environments. Perhaps another rule is appropriate:
3) Play outside of work.
"feminism" thing is out of hand [...] Ive seen women call the cops for no reason cause her boyfriend made her mad. but that's besides the point.
Your argument is that you (in a way you can't verify) once saw a woman do something bad therefore feminism is evil.
dude, whatever is making you so High (702), I'd like some because clearly it is some phenomenally good shit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Err...can you point me to the method to instantly turn off/on that hormone switch, and turn off my male sexually programmed brain?
Yes, whenever I see a woman, I instantly instinctually size her up with the question, "would I want to fuck her"?
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that does this...it is evolution as another person put it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A lot of people here seem to have their identity tied up very strongly with the idea that some men they don't know and have never met didn't harass anyone. It is impossible ot reason with someone who feels their very identity is at stake.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Considering there was no Representative Democracy that included large portions of the population until the end of the 18th C and now republics, in one form or another, are the norm
You seem to correlate representative democracy with republican form of government. UK and Belarus are laughing at such idea.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
Err...why change and reverse the roles that worked SO well for so many 100's of years?
Even for relatively recent history...this worked out BETTER when the men worked, and the women stayed home to care for the kids, hell...there's biological proclivity for this.
If it isn't working mixed, why not go back to what was proven to work in the past vs doing full blown reversal into unknown territory?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Err...can you point me to the method to instantly turn off/on that hormone switch, and turn off my male sexually programmed brain?
Yes, whenever I see a woman, I instantly instinctually size her up with the question, "would I want to fuck her"?
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that does this...it is evolution as another person put it.
So how does that work when you see your mom/sister/daughter/grandmother/etc?
I'd make the case that you're already being selective about when you even think those thoughts, and that you need to move yourself out of rutting stage when you're at work as well.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
you can turn it off by being someone to which the idea of being in any sort of relationship is laughable, since they have no self-esteem left from years of bullying.
probably not worth it though, I'd say from experience.
But skeptics and physicists need evidence and proof, not proclamation. The Aether was proclaimed to be real. Turned out not so much.
And your grandparents would have washed your mouth out with soap for disrespecting women. Your grandparents worked hard so you could have a better life - don't disrespect that by using it as an excuse to disrespect others. For that, they'd have taken you out to the woodshed.
With that attitude your grandfather probably beat your grandmother as well.
In ancient mythology Jesus was the son of (a) god. ...
So I guess it is a question of parent/child relationship if he was god/father fearing, or if he simply loved him.
I think I read something regarding Jesus that had something to do with love
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is supposed to be a site for tech nerds. The proper solution is creating a browser plug-in which automatically performs a search in your configured search engine for every sentence the user ends with a question mark.
Dress it up a little and you can get $$$ in VC funding for this new revolutionary AI. Patent it, and then you can sell out to Google, Amazon, or Microsoft.
Asking someone on a date is ok. Maybe you don't ask while doing their paycheck or their annual review or during a business meeting - but these are specific circumstances when asking is just inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
But people need relationships and sometimes that person is a coworker and you don't know until you ask. But yeah you can ask without being an idiot, and if the answer is "no" then don't ask again unless circumstances have significantly changed - persistent and harassing are very closely related.
Kinda hate when people come out right away bashing one side or the other - not every story is the same.
How about focusing on what cultural changes we could promote that would minimize the confusion about when it's ok to ask, when it isn't ok to ask, when behavior is wanted or isnt wanted ?
My daughter once railed against social norms saying why do we have to behave or dress according to other people's rules? I tried to explain that some of them are useful like if you're wearing a wedding ring it is safe to assume you're not interested in other people. Her response - but I shouldn't have to advertise my relationship status or my sexual orientation. She's a modern woman - everything is about oppression to her.
So we can have a ring that means marriage, but also women (and men) feel free to wear it if they are just not interested in someone asking them, or we could invent a different sign to mean just that. Not wearing it isn't an invitation for harassment it just means the person might be open to the right idea at the right time with the right person. Wearing it means specifically not interested and to respect that just don't try.
That's just one example. We could have more of these, to solve the problem at the social level so it works for all workplaces not just tech or just banking or autos or whatever.
Yep. Then she can do the dishes and I'll tuck in the kids.
Well, that wouldn't be sexist if they invited the male employees to a seminar on deodorants and aftershaves...
Your theory that it's some kind of inherent property of male humans is undermined by the fact that it's far less prevalent in some cultures. Those cultures don't seem to be burdened by this additional cost.
Incidentally they also tend to have more women in industries like construction.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Googled it for you:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-finds-democracy-in-decline-around-the-world-2013-1
This is why it's important to supply sources instead of expecting others to on your positive claims. You might learn something about your own bias.
That being said, this has nothing to do with anything. We should fix this kind of management and sexism abuse when and where it occurs.
Fuck off cunt.
He said he saw women, not a woman, so he's seen it happen more than once. Also, the fact that he says he has seen it tells us he was there, which means that, in all probability, he was the boyfriend in each case. The common factor here seems to be him.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
What you've said is perfectly fine. You can totally assess fuckability just like women do.
Outwardly treating people with respect is a totally different thing.
Or just not doing catcalls because if you actually want to get fucked by said women, you wouldn't (unless the situation dictated it, like a boozefest party).
When the boss or the coworkers are pretty much only sexually harassing women (and it's not just "asking them out for dates" - repeatedly after being told no) then this is gender-specific problem
Is the ratio between women and men affected statistically significantly different from the ratio between heterosexuals and gays?
I desire work to look good. I don't mean humans, I mean I desire code to look beautiful. And algorithms to look hot. We need to remove all software from the workplace because if I wasn't already married I would marry my computer.
I am actually doing that right now.
If the female workforce realizes this door swings both ways.
Some of the male population will refuse to interact with their female counterparts because, in this day and age, it takes only an accusation ( true or otherwise ) to destroy your career.
So ladies, when you walk about the workplace and it feels like everyone is ignoring you, now you know why.
Yes: what percentage of the "predation" cited in this complaint is really being asked out by a socially unsure, nerdy man the complainant considers below her station?
If you think having a wedding ring on your finger keeps men from hitting on you, I have news for you. I wore one as what I called "fly repellent" - keeps the nuisances away - but unfortunately, that works out so that only the creeps hit on me. So when I misplaced it, I didn't bother looking for it, since it wasn't doing its job.
Her response - but I shouldn't have to advertise my relationship status or my sexual orientation
At work, this is absolutely true. It has nothing to do with getting the job done. And let's be honest, most workplace romances get really awkward when the breakup happens. There are plenty of other places to meet people where the unwritten rules about "no workplace relationships" are more relaxed, such as volunteer work, since money and power shouldn't enter into it, the dog park, or even community-organized social or other clubs.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A lot of people have the same problem when it comes to "female oppression." It largely does not exist, yet we keep seeing ideologues spewing bullshit at every turn proclaiming it's rampant and that we live in a "rape culture." You and your ilk are the more serious problem here.
Of course it has. Religion gets people to do all sorts of things, some of which is very good.
Do you really want to be the one to do the survey? And what is the likelihood that people living in anti-gay states would tell the truth if they were?
However, we don't need to do the survey. There are more women who have experienced harassment and discrimination and misogyny than there are gays and lesbians.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd add to that the Valley culture of "work here, play here" .. or else. Even when it's not appropriate. There's something to be said about not "shitting where you eat" and this is a similar problem. You need the culture of coming to work to work... but it goes along with proper time to go home and do home stuff. Otherwise you just bring the outlet for bad behavior to the office.
A lot of people here seem to have their identity tied up very strongly with the idea that some men they don't know and have never met DID harass someone
Not to the same extent. There seem to be more people here for whom no evidence is sufficient who fall on the side of refusing to believe than believing.
This naive, passive-aggressive, SJW revenge-of-the-nerds has sown the seeds of a lot of pain. It has ushered in Trump and a new era of conservatism,
the fault of Trump ultimately lies with Trump and the people who voted him in.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Thanks for proving my point!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It wasn't a blonde bombshell was it?
http://www.bizjournals.com/san...
An "engineer" with no engineering degree. Tesla put her in the position above more qualified people and now she's complaining.
How much of this actually is a problem and how much of it is just gold-digging (aka the current-day version of the McDonald's scalding coffee)?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Some women lie. To be fair, people in general lie. I have a friend who told me that during a recession, one woman accused him of harassment because she was vying for his position. The co's trim policy let staff go in order hiring, and he had seniority over her. Thus, to increase her chances of survival, she tried to frame him. I know for sure she wasn't his type, so I believe him.
Table-ized A.I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Example cultures? I realize in some cultures women have much more social power than one typically sees, and that could indeed change the dynamics. But that's because women there have a proverbial big stick. A big enough stick can re-shape just about ANY behavior. I'm talking general tendencies. Being a male myself, I can vouch we, er, I think way too much about...um..."romance", especially when younger. It can be tamed, but takes a lot more power than other emotions/instincts.
Table-ized A.I.
Thinking that this mindset (men want sex all the time and women control when and how it happens) is the result of evolution shows a profound misunderstanding of history and cultural evolution.
It surely is true in your culture, but it wasn't always so and it isn't even true across all cultures in the present
It'd be great to hear from the handful on English literate, non western slashdotters. I have a friend (who's a mom) and she's from Russia. She says Americans are too up tight, we need to flirt more at work, etc.
For the record, I believe that anyone who unilaterally messes with anyone at work ought to be sensored or fired. Including the gay guy who was jokingly hitting on me.
Or, you know, just treat people like humans and not meat, and pretend they have feelings, and are just as good at their job as you are unless proven otherwise and deserve equal pay unless proven otherwise. Ive worked successfully with men for years, its not that difficult in the right environment. My workplace would not tolerate such flagrant catcalling and things. Once the higherups acknowledge and suppress the problems, it will be a better workplace for everyone.
So how does that work when you see your mom/sister/daughter/grandmother/etc?
People are sexually desensitized to those they grew up closely with. That's a strong trait acquired by natural selection, because incest is very bad for the survival rate of offspring.
Now, if you first meet your sibling as an adult, there is nothing to stop attraction at the emotional level (except your reasoning, knowledge, and social pressure).
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
Oh dear! I swear it wasn't me, but thanks for that!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"However, we don't need to do the survey. There are more women who have experienced harassment and discrimination and misogyny than there are gays and lesbians."
That's obvious if there are less than 50% of gays, and it is related to what I was mentioning, i.e., that the mere fact that more women are affected doesn't make it "a gender-specific problem" any more that, say, nine whites assaulted for every single black assaulted in a region with a 9:1 ratio doesn't make assaults "a race-specific problem" because it is in fact in line with the expectations.
In that case, you should aggressively advocate religious fundamentalism as you claim it reduces undesirable human behavior.
However, empirically observing modern geopolitics - fundamentalist regions are universally vile places filled with human suffering while secular places tend to be some of the better places to live.
Does this "sort of things" include yelling Allah Akbar prior to blowing oneself up in a crowded area? Also who gets to decide on definition of "very good"?
> In 1944, women comprised 35.4 percent of the civilian labor force.
> In 1945, women comprised 36.1 percent of the civilian labor force.
https://msudenver.edu/camphale/thewomensarmycorps/womenwwii/
I can't be the only one who thought she accidentally walked in on Jean-Claude Van Damme working out, right?
What behavior was rewarded? Catcalling? You serious?
Let's lay it clear - competition between males was rewarded. Not catcalling. Not rape. Competition between men. And the females were all too happy to embrace the winners. This behavior - males compete and the winners take all - is as old as multi-cellurar organisms that procreate sexually. 800 million years or so...
You give the impression that today the world is different somehow. Well, we still struggle for life, procreation and happiness, don't we? And we have that system where a thing called " money" - if you have it in great quantities - you live longer and are healthier and the prospects of your offspring are better and.......you get to fuck and choose your woman among much greater pool. And you get this money thing by competing with others.
And the women, for whatever "strange" reason still prefer the top 20% men - from dick size to wallet size.
Even if you remove completely the economy factor by say achieving Star Trek utopia, women will still go for winners only [the smartest,the starship captain, the biggest dick, whatever is beneficial/desirable in that utopia] and the sexual selection will FOREVER drive males to compete.
Message from the women to men: be ashamed from what we made of you! You, our creation, selected sexually to be a winner, brought up by your mother to be a winner [did you forget that all of us are influenced the most by our mothers -after all they married that competitive male - your dad], you are wrong, we don't need you and we don't want you.
10 out of 10 for schizophrenia, girls!
Bravo!
Don't forget the nexus of both, the worst of the worst: Black Women. *shudder*
On one side, you have a bunch of sheltered dorks, gays, and emasculated men.
Oh you went there. Well, that degenerated quickly. Though I guess the sensitivity training stuck a bit since you didn't sat "dorks, fags, and emasculate men".
On the other, you have people who have lived and breathed violence.
Playing Call of Duty in your mum's basement isn't "living and breathing violence".
In civilised countries, living and breathing violence generally gets you arrested. Not even pro fighters live and breathe violence: if the other party doesn't consent, then it's illegal, and will get you gaoled for GBH or something similar.
There is a whole world where your internet activism is irrelevant beyond children
Seems to be working, which means it's relevant. Must make you mad as hell! Why don't you take some of that Call of Duty that you live and breathe and take it out on a hapless customer service employee.
and faggots
I retract my statement. I guess the sensitivity training didn't stick.
Good luck poking that bear when it wakes up.
The bear has been well and truly poked. All it seems to do is spew misogynstic insults at people it doesn't like like Anita Sarkeesian. A curious animal, but ultimately of little actual danger.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Males are biologically horny
So are women. The idea that it's men is a construct of this society. Others, such as ancient Greece considered women to be the uncontrollably horny ones.
Society needs to decide how much enforcement and regulation should be applied to curtail it because the cost ain't free: court costs, firing, training, and policing it is a de facto tax on products and services.
Unless it has the opposite effect of more women in productive jobs (i.e. larger overall pool of workers) in which case the tax will be negative.
Another thing is that if a lady doesn't want such attention, dress ugly, or at least non-sexual. It's quite possible to look professional without adding a sexual nature. Wear dark pantsuits or long loose-fitting skirts, mild or no lipstick, light makeup, hair up or a simple ponytail, and simple practical shoes.
Guys: wear a sharp suit. Feemales uglify yourself because it's YOUR fault if horndogs can't control their actions like civilised people. Oh and tough on you if dressing well tends to help with career advancement. Double tough if the dress code requires high heels.
I've asked some attractively-dressed ladies why they dress provocatively and yet complain about harassment. Their answer is often hypocritical: "I'm okay when nice men flirt with me but not creeps".
I'd say that kind of puts you into the creep end of things: what's really creepy is those people who can see other people's boundaries but willfully violate them. These ladies it seems would rather people like that didn't (for example) keep pushing the flirting after being shut down. You are basically saying it's not OK, and just fine for those creepy guys to keep pushing.
Society will probably have to compromise: men can tone it down and learn to be more subtle, and women can manage their attire better.
Maybe you should just beat off on the regular so you don't get a boner whenever you atch a glimpse of ankle.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sex is a market. There are the suppliers (women) and the consumers (men).
WTF. I realize that I'm doing an ad-hominem now, but there is just no other appropriate response. Don't they have an education system where you live?
And no one even challenged you on it.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, should we just throw up our hands and say fuggedaboutit, or maybe, just maybe, we could work a little harder on problems like these, where the problem is essentially to tell a bunch of assholes (and the smaller group of management assholes who are enabling this) to stop being assholes?
It won't stop until women stop rewarding assholes.
Dude, there's literally nothing right or correct in what you posted.
People who harass other people are the ones at fault, full-stop, period. I don't care how the people they were harassing were dressed, the instant one party decided to impose themselves on the other party, they were in the wrong.
You are trying to tell people how to dress and groom themselves. You think, somehow, that your opinion on what they should wear should be important to them.
There is no compromise. If you can't restrain yourself from behaving inappropriately in a given situation when it comes to respecting another person's bodily autonomy or commenting inappropriately on their appearance, the problem is YOU, not them, period.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Evolution says that when I see you have more things than I have, I should smash your skull and take what you have. Yet we expect people to resist it.
If you aren't capable of reining in your urges, then you are the problem. If you can rein it in, and behave appropriately for the workplace, then no problem.
If nobody knows that you're thinking of fucking your coworker, it isn't a problem. If somebody knows, then the problem is that you aren't keeping your shit under control.
It's not that difficult a concept, but so many people here don't seem to get it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
My issue with asking out/being asked out by coworkers is that it puts the person being asked out into an awkward situation, and that isn't fair to inflict on a person in a workplace.
The person being asked out now has to spend time thinking about something they may not have been thinking about before, they may be stressed out about how a rejection might be handled by the other party, they may be worried about how accepting will make them look to other co-workers, and a whole host of other concerns.
Over the course of my career, I've been asked out by co-workers a number of times. My standard response is a polite but firm no, along the lines of "thanks, but I don't mix work and dating." 90% of the time, they accept the no and everything is cool, maybe some bruised feelings but nothing major. 10% of the time it has made things toxic due to them behaving poorly (spreading rumors, insulting or attacking me/my ideas far more aggressively than is merited, in one case the person literally turned around and went to our manager and demanded that I be moved to another team because they found me unbearable to work with (no joke, like, literally 2 minutes after asking me out they contacted our manager and, despite how absurd it was, it wound up becoming a whole "thing").
As a result of that 10%, if I get asked out by a co-worker, I now worry about whether or not the rejected party will be an adult about it, which causes stress, and was not stress I had to worry about until they decided to share with me their interest. I do not want to inflict that kind of stress on another person, so I don't ask my co-workers out while I'm still their co-worker.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Rape and sexual assault in general is pretty much a gender-specific problem. Guys (see a lot of comments under this article) who refuse to use a condom and then complain that they "got roped into" getting a woman pregnant is also a very very gender-specific problem. That there may be other problems not related to gender doesn't mitigate this. To the contrary, it's used as an excuse to "get over it, everyone's got their own problems".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
We'll see dude
About what?
My life was so easy when I treated people like garbage and would just stomp someone into oblivion at the slightest provocation
if it wasn't for this wonderful peak into the world
peek, not peak.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
To put their company in America.
Remember when people were happy to have a job even if it meant plunging to your death building Hoover dam.
Pepperridge farms does, Other countries do too.
A lot of people here seem to have their identity tied up very strongly with the idea that some men they don't know and have never met didn't harass anyone.
Wow. In the last 40 years there has grown a massive academic framework, new vocabulary, new "disciplines", new courses of study, and thousands if not millions of people who make a very good living based on the theory that there is and has always been an oppressive patriarchy that incidentally "hurts men too". And you don't think most or all of those people don't have their identity wrapped up in this belief?
Man, go to any college campus in the U.S. and challenge anyones beliefs on this topic and see what happens to you.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
As Vadim Makarov already explained, this, too, is evolutionary biology speaking. Scientific research has already indicated humans get more insensitive (aka; the desire/rutting stage gets less) when they hang out around the same faces, and the more you hang out with them, the less the sexual attraction plays. this already happens - unconsciously, thus - when we are kids, and the phenomenon even applies to people we see a lot (from childhood) even if they're not blood-related.
The reason for this is purely biologic/evolutionary, since in ancient times, when people lived in close family units and tribes, the people around you (who you saw the most, thus) also had the strongest blood-relation with you, and incest is bad for reproduction. Thus, we are still hardwared today to avoid sexual attraction with people we have had a lot of constant dealings with from a child's age.
This is the reason, thus (since you asked 'how it works'). It's a bit ironic, since you tried to argument that it's purely a matter of free will about 'being selective', while in fact, that to substantiates even further the notion that sexual desire (AND the lack of it) has deep roots in our biological nature. It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away. Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps), but that still doesn't mean we can pre-emptively prohibit the feeling of desire itself.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
True.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This obviously only applies to some degree or level. Otherwise NO-ONE would have sex with co-workers. Yet, research has shown a relative large percentage does - *including women*.
It's difficult to imagine co-workers fucking eachother, if all and everyone would never make it clear to anyone else they would like to fuck each other.
A mingled working place, is, after all, ultimately just another place where men and women meet each other. And when men and women meet each other, you'll ALWAYS have some sexual undertones here and there. If you can't deal with that, you can't deal with humans as a whole.
So it's not THINKING about how fuckable your co-worker is that is the problem, nor -as you imply - is it that that co-worker knows you think in a sexual manner that is a problem on itself, it's about HOW you make it clear, and how she (well, both parties) feel about it. Normally, you start subtle and sees how it goes from there, and if the response is good, then you get a bit bolder, etc. until it ends in sex (or it's clearly indicated that it's a no).
Is catcalling too unsubtle? Is making a compliment? Is a certain look? A smile? Some innuendo when you speak? Macho-behaviour? Some snowflakes will consider everything harassment, but in a normal setting with normal humans, most non-violent things will be considered ok and part of the normal process of getting on with eachother. The differences here lay mostly into the subjectivity of the individual (with as most extreme example a snowflake at one end, and a rapist on the other side), and within the culture you are born and lived in (what is culturally acceptable for one group, isn't therefor for the other).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
No, you are wrong.
Men, in general, need to grow up and act like men and not teenage boys.
Sure I notice beautiful women when I see them but I keep my mouth shut and treat them with respect. Just because they are pretty does not mean they can not be brilliant at their jobs. It also doesn't mean that they can not be friends and trusted co-workers.
In other words, learn to act like a gentleman and not like an oversexed teenager or I am sorry to say like the current president of the the US.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Interesting then that the people most end up with are those they grew up with and even saw daily, instead of random people they meet in passing in grocery store or the like. Also interesting how most work relationships only happen after a lot of time spent in close quarters, after getting to know someone. In short, I'd question your assertions without some significant studies proving that people are less attracted to those they spend time with daily.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It's actually quite common for siblings who meet as adults to be sexually attracted to each other - especially if they don't know they're related and hence don't have the social pressure. Must be something to do with sensing they have something in common but not being aware of what it is.
I first met a cousin when I was 21 and she was 19, and she was hot! I wasn't, though, so no chance of anything happening...
Yes, but then again THINKING about the cause of wanting to have sex in different cultures and time-periods as being proof of anything shows a misunderstanding of reality. Many, many cultures in many, many timeperiods had it wrong, after all.
The only way in knowing which different subjective stances comes the most close to reality, is through scientific research.
And scientific research has indeed confirmed that the drive to sex is hardwared in our biology to a large extend through millions of years of evolution. The EXPRESSION (how we act on the desires) is heavily culturally based, yes, but having the desire itself isn't. In ALL cultures, people wanted to have and had sex. Those that didn't, died out.
Of course, if you only wanted to say it ain't only men who want sex, but also women, then you're right. Women have as much a sexual drive as men. Well, maybe a bit less, seen the research done with looking at porn, but still considerable.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"Let's lay it clear - competition between males was rewarded. Not catcalling. Not rape."
Actually, that is not entirely true. What is 'rewarded' is having a lot of offspring, after all: that's the only 'reward' biology and evolution cares about. In that context, rape was a pretty useful way of disseminating ones' genes. Especially with other 'competitive' groups. That's why in almost all cases where wars are fought, there is always the raping of women (of the other side) too. There has not been one major war where there have been no rapes. Genetics have showed that this led to a fairly good (and necessary) spread of genes, which leads to strong specimens.
In modern times, dissemination of seed/genes between far-way populaces this way has starkly declined, but luckily tourism has filled the gap.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the morals or ethics of it. I'm just pointing out that in the context of evolutionary biology, rape was rewarding.
For the rest I largely agree with you.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Let's say they're both consuppliers. :-)
But he was right that sex is a market. And I think he wanted to say the general flow of things are more (statistically spoken) that women offer sexual services, and men rather SEEK those services and pay for it. Yes, you have male whores too that offer services, but far less. Yes, you have gigolo's too, but again: far less. There are FAR MORE women offering sexual services to men, then vice versa.
Heck, even the market knows this, because for porn-movies, women are paid far *more* than men, for the same action or scenes. (there is no earning-gap there - or rather, there is, but in reverse...;-))
So, if you interpret what he said in THAT way, he isn't entirely incorrect.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
If you are talking about the expression of it (aka, how one acts on it): we've been doing that for millennia, in different ways in different cultures in different times. But the problem is, that to see it as a problem in the first place, is ALSO already a cultural artefact. Assholes, traditionally, had the more success, thus in many cultures and timeperiods, being an asshole was advantageous. While there are and have been many cultural differences when dealing with sexual or other conduct, in the end, even our culture is profoundly influenced by the basic biological urges of humans one way or another.
If you are talking about the sexual desire itself, it's pretty straight forward: it's ingrained in our biology, through thousand of years of evolution. If you want to get rid of that, you'd need to wait for another 100000-1000000 years and provide an environment during all that time where such behaviour of non-sexual desire is more successful in giving offspring than with those that have.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Seriously? Did you people not see the implicit <sarcasm> tags in my original post?
An anecdote is not data. Thanks.
Males are biologically horny
So what? There's a little thing called impulse control. I'm female and I sometimes get turned on when I see an attractive guy. That doesn't mean I wolf-whistle or holler at him or treat him as a purely sexual object.
And telling women how to dress is just not on... that's the bailiwick of regressive religions and burkas. I dress to be comfortable, and if it's hot, then yeah, my clothes are light and more flesh is exposed than would be by a guy. But I do it to be comfortable, not for the benefit of anyone else. I'm certainly not looking for attention from guys.
The biological thing is a popular argument, and a good excuse. There is no real peer-reviewed research and plenty of historical outliers that would paint a different picture.
Cheap storage VM.
Nobody knows. But I don't think anyone would consider a polite date request by a coworker to be predatory, just so long as the coworker accepted the response (whatever it was) graciously.
I see nothing wrong with asking a coworker out just so long as there's no power imbalance. Two coworkers on the same team? Fine. Two people in separate departments? Fine. A supervisor asking a subordinate out? Not fine... the power imbalance makes it improper.
Thank you, it's sad to see all this misogyny masquerading as "science".
Do we give people a pass because they were biologically programmed to avoid saving, since we evolved as hunters and gatherers who collected food every day.
Cheap storage VM.
Note that this is a behavior that starts (and primarily is working) through infancy/childhood, and that it deals with faces you see *constantly* not, 'once a day'.
But your request for studies is valid and reasonable.
Here you go:
- Shepher, Joseph (1983). Incest: A Biosocial View. Studies in anthropology. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-639460-1. LCCN 81006552
- Shor, Eran; Simchai, Dalit (2009). "Incest Avoidance, the Incest Taboo, and Social Cohesion: Revisiting Westermarck and the Case of the Israeli Kibbutzim". American Journal of Sociology.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Perhaps you would like to restate your point?
Why?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
For regular women yes, but axe-grinding feminists don't think like "anyone." All men are predators.
Yeah, you're not creepy. At all. Just goofing around...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
It's quite possible to look professional without adding a sexual nature. Wear dark pantsuits or long loose-fitting skirts, mild or no lipstick, light makeup, hair up or a simple ponytail, and simple practical shoes.
Guys: wear a sharp suit. Feemales uglify yourself because it's YOUR fault if horndogs can't control their actions like civilised people. Oh and tough on you if dressing well tends to help with career advancement. Double tough if the dress code requires high heels.
Maybe in your righteous anger you didn't notice that the dress code OP proposed for women is actually equivalent to the "sharp suit" and not "uglifying". Not that I agree with OP, but I do see the difference between sexualizing garments and professional ones. I don't know a factory dress code that requires high heels, but I'd call it sexist if it did. Things men don't get to wear but women do though, at work: tight form-revealing yoga pants, deep cut tops, sleeveless shirts, short skirts. Then they are offended that "the creeps*" look where they don't want them to.
*)How not to be a creep: be good looking and tall.
Put your money where your mouth is. Start an all female company and make millions (or lose your shirt).
IF you could get an honest answer, what % of working people would say the most productive person they've ever worked with is female? I'm guessing 1%, and they lie to themselves. I can't think of a women among the top 10.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Typical factory workers have a high school diploma at most, more often a GED, and might have gone to a community college to get a technical certificate for a skill like welding. They are generally males in their mid-late twenties, alcohol problems, former military, and talk shit all day long. In other words, they represent "bro" culture. Not many women can cope with that type of co-worker. Usually the ones that do grew up with older brothers or simply developed thick skin regarding harassment. It's really just a culture clash, good luck trying to get the guys to change, it would be the same as trying to get women to stop wearing makeup despite guys considering it sexual harassment against men.
History written by men.
I believe there's a difference between "sexual" clothing and "sharp" clothing. Women can also wear professional "sharp" clothing without it being sexual.
True, that may happen, but where's the tipping point? That's what I'm asking. Policing/courts/prevention/training/firing has a cost to companies. It's not clear the benefits outweigh the costs.
They didn't necessarily define "creepy" as "pushy", which seems to be your interpretation. Overall, if they personally like somebody they seem to like the sexually-implied attention and if they don't like the person they don't like the sexually-implied attention. They want to use/enjoy the attention when it suits them (no pun intended) but complain when it doesn't. Again, it appears they want it both ways, which I find unrealistic.
If you put honey out, you'll get both bees and flies. If you only want bees but not flies, you are kidding yourself. Just don't put honey out, period.
Table-ized A.I.
Both practice(d) intense communal living and intra-tribal style marriages. In fact, most tribal communities practice this lifestyle, which means that for eons humans have lived more like this than not.
And then there's the work of people like Greg Leavitt (and your referenced Eran Shor btw) who directly counter that the behavior is likely only environmental, not innate:
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Meanwhile plenty of real men have seen other dipshits who call themselves "men" totally harass women in several circumstances.
News flash-- if she's not talking to you don't push it, you're a fucking creep.
Woman assaulted -> by a man Child assaulted -> by a man Man assaulted -> by a man. That's 99% of cases.
Bullshit. That's nowhere near 99% of the cases, or even 99% of the reported cases.
Women are every bit as violent as men - e.g. rate of incidence of domestic violence is highest when both partners are female, and lowest when both partners are male.
You're shitting me?
I've been accused of sexism for holding a door open for someone. You can't fucking imagine the response had I hated myself enough to ask her out.
. If you can't restrain yourself from behaving inappropriately in a given situation when it comes to respecting another person's bodily autonomy or commenting inappropriately on their appearance, the problem is YOU
Woman: Oh, I like your shoes. Woman 2: oh, thank you!
Me: Oh, I like your shoes. Woman 2: Fuck off, creep!
So who's the sexist shit in this scenario? The problem isn't me, the problem is oblique sexist societal rules that make no fucking sense whatsoever and if you expect me to comply then the issue is with you and those fucked up rules and not me.
Hmm, and here we go again. This is why providing references is often futile. One either ignores or denies the validity of the given references (rightly or wrongly), or one gives a plethora of references that counter it, but of which the scientific value is unclear. As you are aware, I'm not dissing scientific research because it nuances earlier research it (but one needs to read it to know what exactly is countered and what not), but I have little regard for 'real life examples'. Anecdotal examples have NO scientific value. Since your first two just mention some examples, but don't provide any references to research done on these groups that demonstrate your point, nor deal with scientific papers coming to a conclusion that corroborates your own, I'm inclined to ignore it altogether. A marginal search of that Church - and I'm not going to continue delving into it, sorry - shows allegations of child-abuse and what not. But that alone does not demonstrate something which is contrary to what I said, since I said: " It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away." and "Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps)". So has there been done research to the pathology of the people in that sect? Did they have free choice in having sex with others outside the community? Etc.
Anyway, as said, a mere 'real-life example' tells us nothing on itself, if it ain't properly researched and statistically analysed.
So that leaves your last one, the third reference. That one seems more scientific, but alas, I can only read the abstract, so I can't comment on the content much. However, something that raises serious questions in my head to a degree which makes me fear for the quality of the rest he might claim is the following excerpt: "In this article, I not only challenge the commonly held notion that inbreeding is injurious, but also argue that inbreeding is often harmless and even fitness-enhancing." There is an overwhelming amount of scientific research in biology that clearly shows that inbreeding, certainly in first and second degree (for instance, fucking your mom and having babies) is NOT fitness-enhancing, but rather the opposite. Do that often enough through generations, and it gets detrimental to your whole bloodline. There is a plethora of evidence for this, so one paper now claiming there is nothing to it, makes *that* paper pretty dubious, not all the others. In fact, if memory serves well, even sex-prone animals as bonobo's avoid child-parent incestuous behavior. And one can hardly claim it's a matter of culture in the animal kingdom.
But anyway, I know this is going to be an endless back-and-forth, as usual on slashdot, and I really don't feel like going through it once again, so let me phrase it this way:
IF the Westermarck effect is real, you have your answer, and it's based on evolutionary biology. If not, it may or may not be biological or cultural, and it isn't (dis)proven one way or another.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Deflection has always been your only thing... Well, that and projection. Do I really need to dig up examples? LOL, I don't have to do shit!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I find it illuminating that in a thread about assholes being assholes, here you are persisting at being a creepy stalker asshole. You even use the same justifications as most harassers do: "Just goofing" "Don't take it so seriously". Good to see you breaking those middle-aged tech bro stereotypes! Here's hoping your work has you stuck in a hole somewhere away from real people.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
It's not 'despite' of that, it's BECAUSE of that.
The truth is, it's an understandable but WRONG reaction to try to shield your kids from all hardships in the world. Far better it is, to let them experience it in small amounts, so they build some resistance to adversities in life and learn to have a spine.
It's exactly because we treat our kids like hothouse plants they turn out to be such obnoxious snowflakes as adults.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The point of the other poster was, that you can not claim the complaints of the women are gender-specific, if you don't know what the difference would be if the ratio was different. For instance, you would need to see if, in a company where the majority of managers are women, and the minority men under them, if their behavior would be different.
Because, while it's possible that they behave as assholes, it doesn't take a specific gender to be an asshole, and that men (apparently) hit more on the women then vice versa is not a sign off gender-specificity, when the ratio of men-women indicates there are far more men than women in that company.
To be clear: I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just saying one has to be careful with broad statements, since bias gets in easily, if you do not statistically analyses it properly. Ones own assertions and conviction are not a substitute for this.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Not going into the content of what you said, but it seems mildly ironic to me that in your statements you address the populace writing on slashdot as geeks, yet you implicitly seem to distance yourself from it due to your own remarks.
May I remind you, that you are also posting and reading on slashdot, and thus, for all intents and purposes, you can be considered a 'geek' by the same right. So why are you acting as what you say doesn't involve yourself? ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am fairly scientifically literate, but I've never heard of evolution having an opinion on such matters.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am not an expert, nor an authoritative source. As such, I am going to write this so that it doesn't look like an accusation or judgment.
Maybe they are 'failures' because they never had motivation to learn a good work ethic? Maybe they are failures because they haven't learned to be patient, and expect immediate gratification?
I don't know that those are true, but if they really are failures (a rather wide and vague category), then they may still turn into productive members of society. Though, at their presumed ages, it is probably only effective if you lead by example, or they are able to observe and emulate good peers.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So, a car-company has manly-men who don't co-mingle with woman in the way that women might want. Is anyone surprised? How about a mechanic? Or a car demolition shop? Or just about any grease-monkey job anywhere throughout history?
Why is it a surprise that men, around other men, working with their muscles, tend to have their blood flooring predominantly through their muscles? It's not diplomacy, and it's not politics. It's auto-repair.
It's dirty, it's hot, it's stinky, it's ugly, it's dangerous, and it's full of tools. Same goes for the language used, the personalities apparent, and the men themselves.
Walk into the mud, and you'll get dirty. I, for one, chose a job out of the mud.
That's just a construct of the society we live in. Culture is our Operating System, and ours is poisonous. Delete it, like Format C, and install another one. And until you do, don't suggest clinging to the old one, or excusing any behavior brought on by that bullshit.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
:-) Whatever gets you off, Chuckie...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
To address the first only briefly, the real life examples, and an entire segment of human population / history can be considered anecdotal, for sure. However, I'm claiming that with so many potential cases countering your original position I took exception to:
a paper making a statement that such inbreeding is the exception rather than the rule better have some significant data addressing a good portion of that human population/history. But, we can put those aside.
First, inbreeding probably needs to be defined just a bit here - it can be inbreeding among a community, which happens often today and throughout history. Inbreeding among a single family unit or first and second order descendants we hope happens seldom today, although we know historically it has happened, and likely happened often, given the amount of recessive genes expressed and/or homogeneity of genomes among a large number of distinct groups. Note that investigations have been done on groups such as the Icelandic, Finnish, Swedish, and various groups in the pacific, central and south america, Tibetans, and on and on wherever a unique culture and relatively isolated group exists.
There is a plethora of evidence for this, so one paper now claiming there is nothing to it, makes *that* paper pretty dubious, not all the others. In fact, if memory serves well, even sex-prone animals as bonobo's avoid child-parent incestuous behavior. And one can hardly claim it's a matter of culture in the animal kingdom.
I think first off, you're making a too narrow assumption about what inbreeding is defined as as far as making any case about it. There is far more than 1 paper raising questions regarding the Westermarck effect and whether any of the supposedly strongest "evidence" for it is actually valid. I'd strongly submit that there's no such "effect" at al, that what's being observed is entirely environmental, and that such behavior only came about when the human race evolved to the point that they lived long enough on average for such activity to even be possible on a regular basis. But that too is a mere hypothesis, and no more or less valid than Westermarck's observations / hypothesis, to be honest.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You're talking white collar jobs where you work.
The article refers to workers on the factory floor. Looks more like a blue collar environment from here. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Squeaky wheel.
If the recent election tells us anything, it's not a large number of people DO NOT give a flying fsck about 'men being men' and 'women being women' much of the time...and if anything, they rather like that.
However, the vast minority often gets the vast majority if airtime these days (refer to the FCC and vulgarity complaints a few years back) despite the vast majority not really caring either way.
I'm not condoning harassment, but what we define as harassment has become so utterly subjective that it's pretty much useless. "I felt cornered, coerced, attacked, dismissed, and am scared to xyz or abc anymore" is considered far more justified that the counterpoint of "I called them an idiot because they ruined 3 days of a production run with a careless mistake, why am I sitting in HR instead of working to fix the problem?"
While "hey sexy, wanna have a party in my pants? everyone's coming" is crude and juvenile, but so is "you cheap fuck, what do you mean I have to pay for my own dinner?? I didn't even bring any money because I thought you were a MAN"
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
So many? You gave two. And it isn't exactly clear what those examples actually prove. No, I disagree there: even myriads of loose anecdotal 'evidence' has little weight, unless it's researched and analyzed well, including the possible variables. This goes both ways, btw, so I'm remaining consistent. There isn't exactly an overabundance of scientific evidence for the Westermarck effect, granted, but at least there is some, and it has more weight to random live examples where one really have no dataset for to even make a valid conclusion. I think your link to that abstract is about the best reference you gave in your post, thus.
As for inbreeding: while the effects may be less severe and degradation much slower the bigger the population is, if I recall correctly you need a minimum of 200 individuals who are fairly genetically distinct to each other to not suffer from any biological deterioration of the species. Which is why with animals on the endangered species list, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a viable bloodline and successful continuation/propagation of the race the less genetically distinct individuals there are. The closer related a community is, the more problems one gets, which is why first and second degree incest gives the worst results. It doesn't mean cousins and nieces don't suffer from the same fate eventually, though - even if it's partially true the first time it happens it may give pretty fit offspring, in repetition through generations it will deteriorate as well. If a small community is isolated, than sooner or later all individuals of that community will be too closely related. One may counter that by saying most communities are larger than 200 people, but if people are that unrelated, I would hardly call it inbreeding in the classical sense anymore. Regardless, saying inbreeding gives you more fit people either is factual erroneous, or a (too) broad generalization to be possibly true, since first and second degree incest inherently also falls under 'inbreeding', and that *certainly* isn't conductive for producing more 'biological fitter' individuals.
As for people who are not closely related having sex, one wouldn't call that inbreeding.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I am a female and I own and run a company. It's not female-only because that'd be just as sexist as a male-only company. We have a mix of both, and the work atmosphere here is great and we're nicely profitable. You don't hear about us because we're small, but there are countless businesses owned by women or that employ a mix of men and women that do very well and don't have any workplace problems.
The analogy of feminism to Nazism is inherently offensive. You know better, or you should.
I consider myself a feminist, and I define feminism as the believe that all people deserve equality of opportunity and freedom from harrassment, regardless of their gender.
Nazism was a nationalistic belief in a master race and the belief that all other races must be eradicated.
ugh... s/believe/belief/
I wish /. would let you edit comments.
I think this is indeed the problem. you have *actual* harassment, and then you have this kind of 21st century third-generation-feminist-sensitivity, where snowflakes yell 'sexual harassment' just because she didn't get a promotion she wanted (just like the majority of the men around her, but thet she ignores), or because someone is an asshole (which isn't gender-specific neither), or a male wants to to hit on her (which is pretty normal if you're a cute/nice/intelligent/sexy women (and sometimes even if she ain't). As long as trying to gauge the interest isn't done in an aggressive way, I don't see what the problem is. that's how men and women get it on with each other, after all.
But no, nowadays, every o-so-slight remark, wink, look or gesture (or even a suggestion for 'drinking a coffee' in his room made to a woman who sits at a bar at 4 o'clock in the morning) - which normally is understood to be part of the process of getting it on - is now considered an invasion of the 'safe space' and all that BS. A lot of those women of the 3th gen feminism are nothing more than snowflakes that have been pampered as hothouse plants and raised with self-entitlement and wallow in the victimization-role.
What's more, they're doing a disservice to the rest. Because it can happen there actually IS gender-discrimination and actuall sexual harrasment - like when it's clearly said 'no', but the man still continuous to be pushy and aggressively. Those are relative rare cases, but with all the snowflake safe-space cries, who can still say how serious a certain thing is?
It's the story of the boy that cried wolf, with this kind of thing.
It's high time the BS disappears and 'rape' and 'sexual assault/harassment' gets back to the status it had before some vocal minority of women tried to pin *everything* on it. As you say: use a term for all and anything, and it looses its value. If it starts to mean everything, it looses its meaning.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Lots of good points, don't have mod points, so go those who do: please mod up.
Are blue collar workers less able to control their impulses, or less able to treat others fairly? That feels sort of like a Victorian idea that the lesser classes don't have the sort of mental control that upper class workers have. I know this idea is out there (not blaming the previous poster) but it seems a rather elitist idea.
We also aren't really white collar. There is a lot of big hardware - people moving multi-ton magnets, installing megawatt AC power lines, plumbing etc. Its not a factory, but its not a bunch of guys sitting at desks. We do have a lot more white collar guys than a typical factory and I think a much older workforce so that might make a difference.
Bro, I wasn't being ironic, I was saying you're just like the first guy that posted that in a completely unironic way.
Also, you seem very obsessed and angry with gay men. IME that means you've probably got some issues that you ought to explore with a qualified therapist. FYI I'm not one, and you should consult a qualified professional asap, rather than taking those issues to the internet at large. It's probably available on your health insurance, but if you don't have that option, I can recommend places to find good quality free services.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
History written by men.
So in other words not actually accurate on the topic in question? That kinda supports my point, so are we in agreement?
I believe there's a difference between "sexual" clothing and "sharp" clothing. Women can also wear professiona
Please consider my reply in context of the post I was replying to.
They didn't necessarily define "creepy" as "pushy", which seems to be your interpretation
I was defining creepy as intentionally violating boundaries.
Everybody enjoys attention from people they like, and everyone dislikes attention from people that creep them the fuck out. Stop pretending this is somehow a gendered issue.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Nazism was a nationalistic belief in a master race and the belief that all other races must be eradicated."
Ironically your cartoon version of Nazism is something a Nazi propagandist would be proud of. As a generalization Nazism is a useful stereotype to label people who are indoctrinated to a belief system and show total intolerance for other modes of thought or belief systems. In that context the SJW feminists definitely are Nazis.
In truth the real problem is that so many is the SJW movement show signs of high levels of indoctrination. - They psych themselves up to high levels of anger and rage, exactly the same techniques the Nazis used to indoctrinate the Germans into loyalty to Hitler. I'm not speaking as an outsider I was once one of those people (an activist) to my shame, but I got older and more cynical and was lucky enough to escape the lie.
The right are wrong on most things - but so very often are the left.
And BTW saying that you believe in equality between men and women puts you closer to many of the modern anti-feminists than the Third Wave SJW feminists who don't want equality but female supremacy.. And 'female' BTW only includes women who agree with them.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
So many? You gave two.
Besides the 2 specific anecdotal references to communities whose children lived together and married within their community, I also stated "In fact, most tribal communities practice this lifestyle, which means that for eons humans have lived more like this than not." Note that many towns and villages in history were under 200 people (the number you reference below) and in various areas were cloistered and separated into their own small communes. I know Westermarck listed large numbers of cases where communities wouldn't marry within their villages, but did he look at the other cases?
And it isn't exactly clear what those examples actually prove. No, I disagree there: even myriads of loose anecdotal 'evidence' has little weight, unless it's researched and analyzed well, including the possible variables. This goes both ways, btw, so I'm remaining consistent. There isn't exactly an overabundance of scientific evidence for the Westermarck effect, granted, but at least there is some, and it has more weight to random live examples where one really have no dataset for to even make a valid conclusion.
And I think this is where I agree with the latter papers questioning whether Westermarck was at all observing what he thought he was observing. It's little different than all the folks thinking the world was flat for a while or that phsycists in 1905 were correct about quantum mechanics, etc etc etc. Now, having said that, I have not carefully read and verified Westermarck's work. He presents a series of observations and makes statements, but no actual backing numbers or anything else that would be required to qualify as a scientific study today. It's more a philosophical work or presented as a logical premise with many many quotations of unknown quality. Given what we know about how much late 1800s science was incorrect about, especially regarding anthropology and sociology, it's likely easier to attempt to validate or discredit the supposed effect than it would be to make a case from his 1890s work.
if I recall correctly you need a minimum of 200 individuals who are fairly genetically distinct to each other to not suffer from any biological deterioration of the species.
I agree with you that is the stated hypothetical minimum. No one knows for sure, however, as no one has ever experimentally verified it. And at least one significant exception to this: anything that does not reproduce sexually.
The closer related a community is, the more problems one gets, which is why first and second degree incest gives the worst results. It doesn't mean cousins and nieces don't suffer from the same fate eventually, though - even if it's partially true the first time it happens it may give pretty fit offspring, in repetition through generations it will deteriorate as well.
This is what has been observed, courtesy of the various European royal bloodlines most publicly.
If a small community is isolated, than sooner or later all individuals of that community will be too closely related. One may counter that by saying most communities are larger than 200 people, but if people are that unrelated, I would hardly call it inbreeding in the classical sense anymore.
There's a current hypothesis outside of the argument that we all sprang from 1 woman roughly 170K years ago that there were also perhaps as few as 1200 individuals in our direct ancestral line as recently as 80K years ago. I say direct, because at this point we've verified genetic contributions from 3 different cousins to homo sapiens, and there is evidence for at least 1 more branch, so far unidentified. I will guarantee you that 80K years ago, those groups of ancestors were small and living apart, with many likely not seeing other groups. We know several current ethnicities branched off at different times in the past 100K years and saw little to no inbreeding resulting in our current racial mixture, so it'd be an interesting question as to how many individuals were involved in each grouping. We'll likely never know.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or just call it what it is. Trying to win the lottery with sexual harassment claim. Just like they tried to squeeze Bill Cosby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Listen to it. You can't make this up. Somehow that trial ended up in a deadlock? HOW? Was someone asleep the entire trial or just an imbecile or idiot?
If people are telling you "fuck off, creep!" when you compliment their shoes, and doing so regularly, then maybe the problem IS you.
Really, though, the situation you described had nothing to do with what I wrote, so I have no idea why you bring it up. I intentionally said commenting inappropriately. If someone turns into a raging asshole because someone commented innocently and non-creepily on their shoes, that's on them.
That some people may respond badly to completely non-creepy compliments does not make it AOK to suggest that women are at fault for "dressing sexy" and being told how they should dress because men are, according to the person I responded to, really not responsible for their behavior when they see an attractive woman and it's kind of the woman's fault.
I never said I expect you (or anyone) to comply with "oblique sexist societal rules" - I said, and I think I said it pretty fucking clearly, that I expect people to restrain themselves and behave appropriately in a given situation. Note that I said PEOPLE. As in, no particular gender.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Because your reply to me seemed to indicate that one of your points was 'unrelated to the argument'.
Your words, not mine. Or have you already forgotten?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Sorry, the correct quote was 'unrelated to the discussion at hand'...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Your other replies are not clear, so I'm skipping a counter reply.
Well, that probably does NOT match the definition used by the women I interviewed (described earlier).
That might be true, but if the tension is between a male and a female, it's often classified as "sexual harassment". If a "jerky" guy is bothering another guy, it doesn't (yet) have some special societal category. It's merely "being a jerk".
In one case one office guy kept proselytizing his damn religion to me. If I complained to HR about him, he'd probably just get a simple warning. Usually not so with "sexual" encroachment claims: there would be a bigass investigation.
Table-ized A.I.
In other news:
Looking for love? Try the office! Relationships that begin in the workplace most likely to result in marriage
Despite discouragement from companies and colleagues, office romances are more likely end in marriage than relationships that start in any other way - even meeting through friends.
By contrast, relationships begun in a nightclub or pub almost always end in either a fling or a one-night stand
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
To add to it, according to okcupid data analysis (dating site) 80% of males were rated as "below average" by females:
https://theblog.okcupid.com/yo...
He/she has a point.
Among homosexuals, lesbian partners have less frequent (although, longer) sex encounters than gay men.
It works the same way with married couples, males tend to want to have more sex, than females.
52% of population is female, think how could we get to (a lady said that in the context of who has to pay for the first date) "pussy is expensive, dicks are free"?
I mean, perhaps you have some clues from your education, share them with us please.
This is so obviously just that one angry ugly lesbo chick getting publicity for her bullshit case. I certainly hope she is not a reflection of most women in tech. She's just trying to game the system for her own advantage. Probably someone at the company pissed her off and this is the result.
What I find sad is not so much how women seem to circle the wagons despite a complete lack of evidence but that there are so many male turncoat white knight types who will no doubt automatically side with them despite not even being wanted over there. Women like this stoke the flames and encourage the inherent animosity between the sexes. I'm all for Make Love Not War but if women want to fight against the other 50% of the population that's fine. I know which side I'm on.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"Note that many towns and villages in history were under 200 people"
Yes, but this seems to forget that once in a while, someone from another village or even from far away spread his genes also within that genepool - a wanderer, a pilgrim, etc.. It also forgets that during war (and there were many back in history), women were often raped too, which also spread genes around. And this is what I mean: with random 'live-example' sizes without any proper research and analysis done, you are absolutely nothing. Most of the tribes and/or villages were not truly closed of to (genetic) influences from the outside. What conclusions can one draw from a village of less than 200, if you don't know the genetic make-up of it and the rate at which 'foreign' genes were introduced in it? I would assume that even a 0,1% influx each ten years makes already a whole difference. So that means that any such examples under 200 individuals would have to be completely closed of from genetic influx to determine how inbreeding deteriorates biological fitness. The few examples of THAT, that I know of, rather substantiate the claim it isn't conductive to a good genepool with fit individuals. But even that I wouldn't consider any proof - as said, I remain consistent - since there is no researched data-set on it, so I don't know how big the genetic drift in those communities were, even when it's said they were almost completely sealed off, nor can I be sure their demise is purely due to genetic deterioration.
For the rest: there are several things you say here I largely agree with. One note about the hypothesis of the 'one mother': I've also read that there is an overabundance of 'one mother' or 'a few couples' genealogy-tree(s) for the different human races, which isn't realistic. This is rather a result of the procedure and structure of the methodology, rather than an actual reality. Researchers have the tendency to go 'up' the tree to end with an 'origins' mother and father, while in practice, it's very unlikely every tree really only had one mother or father where the whole tree sprout forth from; in most likelihood, it will have been a small tribe, even at the beginning. And, as you correctly point out, there have even been genepool-influences by other branches of the human race, even with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Anyways, I think we both said what we had to say. There is a lot we seem to agree on, and for the things we do not agree, well... let's agree to disagree on those, then. ;-) Eventually, science will prove it one way or the other in a more definite way, no doubt.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You miss my point: It's fucking impossible to know what 'behave appropriately' means. The rules are oblique, impenetrable and constantly fucking changing.
So fuck you and your normative behavioural focus. Society doesn't have any fucking consistency, people are therefore going to get it wrong, and you can just fucking deal with it.
In short: Stop judging people for failing to obey your arbitrary changeable unpublished inconsistent rules.
Well, that probably does NOT match the definition used by the women I interviewed (described earlier).
Your definition was unclear, and besides I'm talking about what people generally find creepy in the most general possible terms rather than a specific list of behaviours.
That might be true, but if the tension is between a male and a female, it's often classified as "sexual harassment".
Sometimes incorrectly perhaps, but mostly sexual harassment is not merely about the genders of the participants. A boss being a dick is a dick. A poss propositioning an employee on day 1 is sexual harassment.
In one case one office guy kept proselytizing his damn religion to me. If I complained to HR about him, he'd probably just get a simple warning. Usually not so with "sexual" encroachment claims: there would be a bigass investigation.
So?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We KNOW the complaints are gender specific. How many complaints of sexual harassment are brought by men against women? Get real. We've had 3 stories of men harassing dozens of women in the space of a week, not one of women harassing men.
And you show you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about to minimize the problem as "men hitting on women." You miss the entire point. Tone-deaf. Total lack of insight into your own assumptions.
Re-read the stories. Keep on. Eventually it might sink in.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm not here to debate the general meaning of "creepy"; that's mostly off-topic. I tried to get clarity myself when I interviewed the mentioned ladies. To recap, there did not seem to be any "external" objective standard about what flirting-like behavior they liked and didn't like from a guy: it depended heavily on whether they personally liked the person presenting such activities. That explained the seeming contradiction of their potentially provocative fashion and their complaints about "creeps".
In their minds, the upside of the welcomed flirt-resembling behavior seemed to outweigh the downside of the UNwelcomed flirt-resembling behavior of those they didn't PERSONALLY like (AKA, "the creeps"). This "model" is consistent with the results of my interviews, and accurately mirrors their complaints and fashion choices. I don't claim it's definitive evidence, but does explain well the observations and conversations I had with them. If you have a better behavior model to explain these conversations and fashion choices, I'd like to see it.
Based on that model of their reasoning process, their behavior is morally hypocritical in my opinion. They CAN do something about most of the unwanted attention, but choose not to because they like the social upsides enough.
I hope that's clear now. If I make it any clearer, I'll have to charge you a technical documentation fee.
So there is more than one way to be an asshole. Furthermore, if a lady (or "target"?) happens to be attracted to the boss, she may enjoy the "propositioning" and not complain (or later complain for money alone due to greed). Thus, it's not the mere act by itself that determines if she is "bothered" by the activity.
Table-ized A.I.
what are those culture ?
Never meant to pull myself out of the "geek" definition. Of course I am. I a software engineer by trade and a card carrying member of the anime club. I was merely making an observation with a nudge to action. Whether born from resentment or merely indelicacy, male geeks tend to swing misogynistic. It's a bit of a put off to girls and probably augments the former as a consequence. The only thing I'm excluding myself from is the lack of empathy for the female gender.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I'm not here to debate the general meaning of "creepy"; that's mostly off-topic.
Well you are debating it and it's kind of central to the topic.
To recap, there did not seem to be any "external" objective standard about what flirting-like behavior they liked and didn't like from a guy: it depended heavily on whether they personally liked the person presenting such activities.
No, that's recapping your understanding it not mine. Here's the thing. Everyone has boundaries and they vary person to person, generally based on who they like. A person may be entirely happy to have hugs from some selected close friends, but very very strongly dislike identical behaviour from strangers. This is true for more or less everyone and here's the thing, you can't "logic" it away. No amount of reasoning is going to make someone hot who doesn't know you want a great big hug from you.
Now what the real essence of creepyness is the willingness to knowingly violate someone's boundaries. That includes unwanted hugs, unwanted touching and unwanted flirting. And it applies no matter what that person is wearing.
Now I expect to be able to dress nicely of an evening to appear attractive to the people I want to attract (a somewhat limited scope these days). I also expect people to not persist in bothering me because I'm wearing nice clothes and they want to.
If I make it any clearer, I'll have to charge you a technical documentation fee.
It was never unclear, and no matter how clear you make it I'm unlikely to agree because I disagree with the premise.
Thus, it's not the mere act by itself that determines if she is "bothered" by the activity.
Not everyone's bothered by getting stuff nicked.That doesn't make theft not a crime.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes but the intention with the message is ironic rather than the superficial meaning of the words.
You don't really get irony, do you. I was and am mocking your internet tough guy persona.
If the intent with the message was actually true, it would be an impressive claim regardless of if it was an overreaction.
You're impressed by a angry basement dweller making exceptionally unlikely claims and threatening murder? Well, I guess that explains a lot about you.
Of course, all a weakling faggot
Seriously what is with your angry gay man obsession? I don't think it's very healthy.
consciously facing the fact that you are incapable of such feats is damaging to the psyche.
So you are claiming that I want to murder people I've never met?
all the memes mocking people that brag about being athletic or getting girls. Well-rounded people are capable of accepting that without feeling the need to mock it
Lol!! They're not mocking the act of actually being athletic or "getting girls", they're mocking people for making unlikely brags about their own abilities.
Regarding your other statements, someone has to push back against perverts before we are forced to let you fondle our children in public.
Well,that makes a change from private fondling, I guess. Though the majority of that is done by parents and close relatives.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Your first sentence is a fallacy. As I've said repeatedly, to know if it's gender-related, you also need to know the relative prevalence of the % of women and men in that workplace. It's *obvious* that if there are far more men than women, within the pool of complaints, there will be far more complaints about men too. What do you not understand about that, Sherlock?
Furthermore, your assertion that because there has been no complaint of men against woman means it's some sort of misogynist gender-related one-sided mentality is unsubstantiated. With the same token, one could claim that there is no abuse being done by the women versus the men in (married or not) couple, but only the reverse, because there is hardly any complaints of men being abused by women. This, too, has shown to be erroneous: research have demonstrated there is also a considerable amount of men getting abused by women, but this is VASTLY under-reported, due to the prevailing mentality and culture, where it's considered extra shameful for a man to be the 'weak' partner and getting victimized. while women in the same situation get a lot of support, rather the contrary is the case for men in the same situation. Logic would dictate this is even less likely to be outed when it's a female co-worker or manager on the workfloor. This is not to say women do not get sexually harassed at all, mind you - because I know the mindset of you types of snowflakes - but that what you say, namely that the lack of complaints of men towards women is proof that no such abuse happens, is *false*.
Given those two counters, it's impossible to gauge at face value whether 1)there is really an abundance of sexual harasment going on with Tesla, even going as far as being a 'predatory zone' and speaking of 'safe zones' - both terms typically used by snowflakes that wallow in hyperbole.
Your insistence that you 'KNOW' it's all true I find laughable; you know as much as the rest of us in this particular case, which is very little. For starters, we only heard one side of the story, of people who got fired and thus have a reason to be revengeful. Furthermore, if one reads the article, one sees things like: "At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said."
It is not said how many women, nor what prevalence of the women workforce they constituted (obviously, if it's a small majority, the hyperbole becomes more obvious), what exactly they thought constituted 'sexual harassment', what is 'mistreated' and why they thought it was gender specific if they got mistreated - I'm assuming male employees got mistreated by managers too, if those managers were assholes, and why it would be 'unfair' promotion decisions and even if it were, why other males that didn't get promoted would be fair as opposed to their (female) denial of promotions.
All this, we can not derive from the article, so saying you 'KNOW' how things really are and in what context it's true or not, is ridiculous.
Get this through your skull: while it's quite possible there is or was (actual, in the legal sense, not in the snowflake sense) sexual and other harassment is possible, but one can't be certain of it either way: the justice department must do its work here, if that's really the case. It's also possible this is done by a bunch of disgruntled female employees who THINK that because they didn't got promotion or got fired means it's due specifically to misogyny and gender-related bias, forgetting that perhaps even more men didn't get a promotion or were fired during the same timeperiod too. And/or it could be done by snowflake-types, who blow up everything in hyperbole and can't handle anything anymore which breaches their imagined 'safespace'.
The sensible and rational thing to do, thus, is leaving it up to the judge to decide, and not to get drawn into the hyperbole and emo-driven conjecture, because of a claim made in a newspaper by some disgruntled female employees. Is that too much asked? Or are you one of these snowflake-types as well?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
And I'm in the ICT-business AND an anime-adept as well, so I guess I qualify too. :-p As many here do, no doubt. Though I must say I find the quality of slashdot has dropped considerably from back in the beginnings, where I had another login/nickname altogether. Is that due to there being less geeks and more...idiots...here, or because the geeks themselves have dropped in intelligence (or at least, the effort to get things precise)? I wonder.
As for geeks and women: it's partially true what you say, but for a large part it's also a myth and generalization. Most geeks ultimately get a woman. Even Linus did. :-) And for those that don't, the majority still isn't outright misogynistic, me thinks, but rather in their field of work, there are less (or less capable as they perceive it) women at work. In general, the emotional/relational is of less importance to geeks than the logical and rational, which is why they often clash with women. But I'm quite sure most geeks can deal with women just fine if they are as rational, capable and logical as themselves - at least as friends/co-workers. For a love-life it might be a bit of a bigger hurdle, but that's because a love-life per definition involves the emotional/relational component. ;-) There is a prevalence of geeks to being introvert, I'll grant you that.
Well, that's my take on it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I agree that a power imbalance is a huge problem, 100% of the time - that is wholly and completely unacceptable, period.
The issue with even peers is, like I said, unless you know the other person reasonably well, you don't know what their experience has been when stuff like that has come up for work and without that knowledge, you're potentially putting them in a very uncomfortable situation.
I've been asked out on the first day at a job, which says to me that the person doing the asking had zero idea of what appropriate workplace behavior is, and probably didn't really grok that whole "human interaction" thing very well. At a bar, sure, ask someone out after barely getting to know them, since that's kind of the point of a bar for many people, but a job? That's a hard no.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
"Knowingly" is not necessarily clear to the other side. People often send mixed signals, even if there is an attraction. A good many social "transactions" are not clear cut.
Table-ized A.I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I agree, I wanted to say, "Freud and Porn producers disagree" .
Mate you need a dictionary.
Anyway, arguments about irony aside. There are few things more impotent than a basement dwelling keyboard jockey pretending to be a tough guy on the internet. While you're not quite as extreme as that chap, you nonetheless fall into the same general area.
In fact, there are actually people who do those sort of things
There are people who when they get into an internet argument actually use full force of the USMC to murder the person they were arguing with? lolnope.
There are certainly tough people in the world. Very few would bother bragging about it on the internet because as you have demonstrated, anyone can brag about anything here.
All research into sex crimes and child molestation have historically showed an overwhelming amount of participation by gays.
Again, you misspelled "parents".
And by the way spouting what you want to be true isn't actually research. Words mean things, you know?
Dunno why you're so angry about it.It's pretty obvious you're not one.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And the moment a woman sees you she does exactly the same thing to you. They just pretend that only me do so.
We should be asking you that question?
Well, do you have an educational system, or has it been infected with feminist ideology?
You sound just like a feminist whore. Maybe you should go to a doctor after your visit to the therapist.
I'm with you, I'd love to never have to do anything beyond housework and still control the majority of money my (theoretical at this point) partner made.
Can I also pawn off the entirety of maintaining the house, mowing the lawn, car maintenance, home protection, and lifting all the heavy objects on her too?
irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
Except I wasn't doing that. I was pointing out that you're behaving like the guy wor originally, unironically posted it. i.e. like an internet tough guy.
Other research that was only overturned
What was overturned wasn't research in the first place. It was a bunch of assumptions from people brought up with Victorian neuroses.
You are presupposing that the original conclusion was valid simply because it was there first. That is a flawed argument.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Jebus! You kiss your mother with that mouth?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Nah, I got your point, I just think it's wrong. I think you're angry (holy shit are you angry) because your brain doesn't do one of the things that primate brains are good at doing, which is handle social cues and contexts.
Engage your rational brain for a second and ask yourself this: if the rules are "constantly changing" and "oblique" and "impenetrable" then how does most everyone else seem to know what they are? Do you think we all get a memo?
The answer is, we do not. Just the part of our brain that handles social cues and contexts seems to work better in ours than it does in yours. Instead of recognizing that fact and either developing or compensating for it, you instead choose to get angry. Which is totally your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when you start screeching and demanding that everyone else change just because you can't keep up.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Instead of recognizing that fact and either developing or compensating for it, you instead choose to get angry.
I get angry because people seem to think that I'm the one with the fucking issue here, purely because they've adapted to cope with the stupidity.
I'm the one that gets yelled at or ostracised for failing to pick up these social cues, or for withdrawing entirely from specific social activities as a means of compensating and developing strategies to deal with it.
I get told off for not being aggressive enough in meetings. I speak up, I get told off for not listening. I listen, I get told off for not being assertive enough. I state my case assertively, I get told off for being arrogant. I build concensus, I get told off for not being aggressive enough.
That's just the last three years.
The irony is that I am now fucking awesome at managing and contributing in meetings because I've had to learn so much theory, maintain self awareness while putting it in practice and constantly evaluate and modify my own behaviour and performance.
That's hard fucking work and I still keep getting told I have to change. And you wonder why I get angry? Fuck that.